The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1887-03-17
TARIFF REFOR M,
iCONTINUED.1 |

hAVENNA, Marc0 Z, 1851.
FRIEND HARRIS:-We are some
lines asked by the friends of "Pro-
.ective Tariff" why it is that property
has increased in value go fast under
the protective system, il it is not
blessing. Very wen, let us see. This
question OF rise in value of real estate
may be somewhat sectional and local:
We will not consent to their taking a
State in the extreme west as sample,
nor will we be so unreasonable as to
ask that one of the oldest states be ia.
ken time and space forbid eur taking
more than one state. Which shall it
be? Perhaps the great state of Illinois
will be as fair an average sample AS can
be. taken. Well, / have said in a for
mer communication that real property |
increased more rapidly in value under
the old tariff for revenue only" than
it ever has under the pernicious pro-
tective system, for there were no arti-
fetal restrictions on trade. By the
census reports the value of real estate
in the State of Illinois has been as fol-
lows: 1850, S96, l33, 800; 1860, $40S..
944 1888 1870, S734, ,634. 1856; 1880, ST.
900 ,594 $50. Now these facts. indis.
putabIe, prove absolutely what the
rate per cent. of increase was during
each decade. From 1850 to lS60 the
increase was 325 per cant this, you
will remember, was when there was
no high tariff. From 1861 to 1870 un.
der high tariff from 1861, or eig lat years
really, it Increased but so per cent,
and from 1870 to 1880. when the high
tariff was in its 'splendor aud glory,
aud its blessings were enjoyed all the
time, the same lands only increased
in value SO per cent; or little over
oue-tenth of what it increased with
out the high tariff. But know some
will say that have taken a favorable
State for example, so I will take the
sum of the reports of all the states for
the same years, and show the rate Ler
cent. of Increase: 1850. to 1860, lO3
per cent; 1850 to 1870, IL per cent;
1870 to 1886, 81 per cent, or, in other
words, the total increase of the value
of all the lands of the United States
from 1850 to 1850, was So 1878 .O00, ,O0C
= without protective tariff" while
from 1861 to 1880, twice as long, under
: the high tariff, it only increased $3
-. 542, ,OOO, 900. 80 We see, if census re
3 ports are worth anything, land has in
creased in value only about one hal
3 as fast under the high tariff as withou
it. With this showing, from figures
l see no foundation for claim in fayo
of high tariff to increase cur nationa
e wealth. Furthermore, we know tina
Y as a matter of fact, business has beel
d depressed and at stand still for tn
last twelve years, and the cause of tn
s same is very appaie tent when We stud.
D the above census report. This Pro
i tective system" has taxed every man
n woman aud child in the land from ST.
z to SIS year for over twenty years. q
g which amount about $8 of each an
e into the national treasury, and tn
e balance of said tax has gone into tn
It pocket of the protected rich. Gu
II government has, in the last twent.
Vt years, spent over $4OO. .0OO, 900 on tn
q Navy. and what is the condition c
r our Navy today? And if this amOun
= has been spent on the navy and W
i have really NO effective navy, then
d it not true that said vast sum of none,
e SO collected, bas been given into tn
, pockets of jobbers aud designing. Gun
n ming men, to enrich themselves thrC
this robber " tariff" at the expens
l. of the farmer and laborer? L shout
d have been more definite. There wa
y q surplus over expenses in 1881 of $l0t
Is 069, 4O4 for 1882 of $l45, ,543.Sl0; fo
s. 1888, $l32, ,S79 ,444; for 1854, of $lO4 ,39S
e 625. Now, for either of these years
u would have taken to raise said surpl..
~ revenue, not needed, and drawn fror
= the proper business, working none
) of the people, over one hundred AL
4 twenty-five million bushels of whes
l. at 50 cents per bushel, and over tw
'r hundred and fifty million bushels {
l. corn at 40 cents per bushel. And rea
ly, the most ridiculous feature of th
r. propositions advanced by these protet
le tionists is this they have proposed
p take ihe taxes off from whisky an
re tobocco, and leave it on sugars and a
A. the essentials of common living,
le have tried so far to show that it
fact that the protective tasiff is
le great injury to the laboring classs
r and to business. I may give som
a further ideas on this subject hereafte
y 3. ID. N.